|
This is the present
draft of the honor code. A Microsoft Word version
is also available. Please let us know what you
think and how you would like to get involved!
NOTE: (i) The University
of Denver Honor Code (Statement section); (ii) the Model Code of Academic
Integrity (Student Honor Council, Formal Procedures and Appeals sections)
written by Gary Pavela of CAI; and (iii) CU-Denver’s University Code of
Conduct (Tri-Institutional section) were used as models for this honor
code. Various formatting, ideas and language from these sources are included
in this draft. Permission from all parties should be sought before further
dissemination of this material.
UNIVERSITY
OF COLORADO AT DENVER
HONOR
CODE STATEMENT
The success of America’s
universities are realized through the meaningful contributions graduates
make to their communities, their field of work and the world. This success
depends upon the dedication to serious study demonstrated by a university’s
students, faculty, staff and administrators. Inevitably, all universities
must deal with incidents of academic dishonesty and other classroom struggles.
How a university addresses those difficulties further defines that institution.
Our academic community at the University of Colorado at Denver understands
that these are not simply student problems, but challenges facing
all members of the university. We understand that integrity in all areas
of a institution is the cornerstone of a university’s mission of academic
excellence. We understand that excellence cannot be achieved without full
participation by students, faculty, staff, administration members and
regents. Therefore, all members of the University of Colorado at Denver
have set for ourselves high standards of honesty and personal responsibility.
In all interactions, we hope to cultivate mutual respect and trust. In
our policies we aim at fairness. To this end, we adopt the CU-Denver Honor
Code as a guide and a testament of our commitment to community strength
and academic excellence.
While there will
always be rules and regulations, the true spirit of the Honor Code is
to step beyond those guidelines and consider what makes our experiences
at CU-Denver most meaningful. Implementing the Honor Code is a process
of recognizing and promoting the integrity each of us brings to our campus.
In effect, it is a public statement of the shared ideals of our community.
PRINCIPLES
The members of our
academic community wish to respond to a crisis that is affecting universities
across the nation. Font page headlines reveal serious situations of academic
dishonesty spreading throughout America’s most prestigious learning institutions.
The situation is exacerbated by outdated and sometimes unfair policies
in place at many of these schools. Students from the Honor Code Initiative
(HCI) have collaborated with members of the Honor Code Advisory Council
(HCAC) to develop CU-Denver’s Honor Code. HCAC is composed of faculty,
staff, students and administration members from diverse areas of the academic
community, as well as individuals from other Colorado universities. The
Honor Code is designed to grow with the University, changing with the
dynamics and population of the campus over time. Modifications to the
Honor Code will be made through HCAC and must be approved by the Chancellor.
Any modifications other than those pertaining to enforcement procedures
must be approved by the Board of Regents. Subject to the approval of the
Chancellor, various colleges and divisions of the University may adopt
area-specific definitions and conduct guidelines so long as they are not
in conflict with the existing Honor Code.
ENFORCEMENT
The "University
of Colorado at Denver Honor Code Procedures Governing Students" shall
govern and be followed in the case of any student at the University who
is accused of violating the Honor Code. The University’s "[FACULTY
PERSONNEL GUIDELINES RELATING TO APPOINTMENT, PROMOTION AND TENURE]"
shall govern and be followed in the case of any faculty member who is
accused of violating the Honor Code. The University’s "[EMPLOYEE
HANDBOOK OF PERSONNEL GUIDELINES & PROCEDURES]" shall govern
and be followed in the case of any staff member who is accused of violating
the Honor Code. The [BY LAWS, OR OTHER BOARD POLICIES], of the
University of Colorado shall govern and be followed in the case of any
regent who is accused of violating the Honor Code. Any conflict or dispute
concerning which procedure governs in the enforcement of this Honor Code
shall be resolved by the Chancellor, or in the case of the regents, by
the Board of Regents.
CU-DENVER
HONOR CODE
PROCEDURES
GOVERNING STUDENTS
- PLEDGE
Beginning the first
day of implementation of the Honor Code, all newly admitted students
will be required to endorse the Honor Code. At the beginning of each
semester, faculty members will be urged to discuss the Honor Code, as
well as student and faculty responsibilities concerning academic integrity
in their classrooms.
II. JURISDICTION
The Honor Code
is meant to serve a parallel role to the Code of Student Conduct currently
implemented through the CU-Denver Office of Student Life. The Honor
Code mirrors the educational philosophy behind the newly revised Code
of Student Conduct. Both seek to move away from punitive sanctions,
embracing instead educational sanctions designed to encourage personal
responsibility and personal growth. While the Honor Code deals primarily
with academic integrity issues, there may arise incidents that cross
over into classroom conduct issues. In that event, the Office of Student
Life and the Student Honor Council together will decide under which
code jurisdiction falls.
- DEFINITIONS [MOST
OF THIS SECTION IS EXCERPTED FROM UCD’S
2001-2002 CATALOG,
WITH REVISIONS ADDED]
Academic Integrity
As members of the
University of Colorado at Denver academic community, faculty and students
accept the responsibility to maintain the highest standards of intellectual
honesty and ethical conduct in assigning and completing all forms of academic
work at the University.
Forms of Academic
Dishonesty
Forms of Academic
Dishonesty include, but are not limited to, the following:
A. Plagiarism
Plagiarism is the
use of another person’s distinctive ideas or words without acknowledgment.
The incorporation of another person’s work into one’s own requires appropriate
identification and acknowledgment, regardless of the means of appropriation.
The following are considered to be forms of plagiarism when the source
is not noted:
1. Word-for-word
copying of another person’s ideas or words
2. The mosaic
(the interspersing of one’s own words here and there while, in essence,
copying another’s work)
3. The paraphrase
(the rewriting of another’s work, yet still using their fundamental
idea or theory)
4. Fabrication
(inventing or counterfeiting sources)
5. Submission
of another’s work as one’s own
6. Neglecting
quotation marks on material that is otherwise acknowledged
Acknowledgment
is not necessary when the material used is common knowledge.
B. Cheating
Cheating involves
the possession, communication, or use of information, materials, notes,
study aids, or other devices not authorized by the instructor in any academic
exercise, or communication with another person during such an exercise.
Examples of cheating are:
1. Copying
from another’s paper or receiving unauthorized assistance from another
during an academic exercise or in the submission of academic material
2. Using a calculator
when its use has been disallowed
3. Collaborating
with another student or students during an academic exercise without
the consent of the instructor
C. Fabrication
and Falsification
Fabrication involves
inventing or counterfeiting information, i.e., creating results not obtained
in a study or laboratory experiment. Falsification, on the other hand,
involves the deliberate alteration or changing of results to suit one’s
needs in an experiment or other academic exercise.
D. Multiple
Submission
This is the submission
of academic work for which academic credit has already been earned, when
such submission is made without instructor authorization.
E. Misuse of
Academic Materials
The misuse of academic
materials includes, but is not limited to, the following:
1. Stealing
or destroying library or reference materials or computer programs
2. Stealing
or destroying another student’s materials in one’s possession without
the owner’s permission
3. Receiving
assistance in locating or using sources of information in an assignment
when such assistance has been forbidden by the instructor.
4. Illegitimate
possession, disposition, or use of examinations or answer keys to
examinations
5. Unauthorized
alteration, forgery, or falsification of academic records
6. Unauthorized
sale or purchase of examinations, papers, or assignments
F. Complicity
in Academic Dishonesty
Complicity involves
knowingly contributing to another’s acts of academic dishonesty
If
a student is ever in doubt about the specific guidelines governing
individual
or group work with respect to a particular course or assignment,
be
sure to ask your instructor for clarification.
G. Classroom
Misconduct
A dynamic classroom
is one where trust and mutual respect prevail. Unfair practices by faculty
or students involve intentionally taking unfair advantage of another within
the classroom and is considered a violation of the Honor Code. Similarly,
instances of extreme incivility toward another within the classroom is
considered a violation of the Honor Code. With respect to classroom conduct
issues, faculty and students are urged to interact with each other personally
and to take steps to resolve any issues between the parties before formally
reporting allegations.
IV. REPORTING
While not required
to do so, students are urged to report Honor Code violations to a faculty
member or the Student Honor Council. If a student observes an Honor Code
violation, adherence to the Honor Code requires that the student take
some action. That action may include reporting the violation, taking
steps to stop the violation (e.g., moving to another seat during a test)
or speaking directly to the alleged violator. In any case, students should
use their own best judgment.
V. STUDENT HONOR
COUNCIL
1. There shall
be a Student Honor Council. The Honor Council is composed of 20 students
in good standing, normally appointed in the Spring for the following academic
year, who may each be reappointed for additional one-year terms.
2. The members
of the Honor Council are appointed by committee consisting of the Vice
Chancellor for Academic and Student Affairs, the Chair of the Graduate
Student Organization and the President of the Associated Students of the
University of Colorado at Denver (ASCUD).
3. Council members
will receive a $500 scholarship from the University for each full year
served. Because many students already balance jobs and families with their
class load, the scholarship is meant to offset the time commitment members
must make in serving the Student Honor Council.
4. All Council
members are subject to training and conduct requirements specified by
the Vice Chancellor for Academic and Student Affairs.
5. The Student
Honor Council has the following responsibilities and authority:
(a) To develop
bylaws subject to approval by the University for legal sufficiency
and consistency with the requirements of this Code.
(b) To advise
and consult with faculty members and administrative officers on matters
pertaining to academic integrity and classroom conduct.
(c) To create
and conduct educational programming designed to promote academic integrity.
(d) To designate
from its members students to serve on Honor Boards, as specified in
Part VII(1) of this Code.
(e) To assist
in the design and teaching of the non-credit workshop on academic
integrity and moral development in collaboration with the Center for
Ethics and Community, as specified in Part VI(2)(e) of this Code.
(f) To issue
an annual report to the HCAC and the Vice Chancellor for Academic
and Student Affairs on academic integrity and classroom conduct standards,
policies and procedures, including recommendations for appropriate
changes.
6. The campus
administration shall provide an appropriate facility, reserved for the
primary use of the Honor Council and suitable for the conduct of hearings.
Clerical and secretarial assistance will also be provided.
7. A full or part-time
Honor Council Administrator will be appointed by the Vice Chancellor for
Academic and Student Affairs, in consultation with the Honor Council.
The administrator will report to the Vice Chancellor, and will be responsible
for the efficient administration of the academic integrity system, as
specified by this Code.
VI. PROCEDURES:
INFORMAL RESOLUTION
The goal of the Honor
Code procedures is to strengthen the cooperation and trust between students,
faculty, staff and administration with respect to academic matters. These
procedures are designed to ensure faculty autonomy in the classroom, while
at the same time providing simple and consistent guidelines for dealing
with academic dishonesty and classroom conduct issues.
1. A student
who suspects that another student may have committed an act of academic
dishonesty shall take some action to address the situation. That action
may include reporting the violation to a faculty member or the Student
Honor Council, taking steps to stop the violation (e.g., moving to another
seat during a test) or speaking directly to the alleged violator. In any
case, students should use their own best judgment.
2. A faculty
member who suspects that a student may have committed an act of academic
dishonesty shall:
(a) address
the situation by means s/he deems appropriate, including, but not
limited to (i) investigating the matter (ii) warning the student against
similar actions in the future, (iii) assigning compensatory work (iv)
failing the student on the assignment or (v) failing the student in
the course. A faculty determination cannot be appealed.
If the faculty member
determined, after a personal meeting with the student, that the student
committed an Honor Code violation, then the faculty member shall:
- inform the student
that a record of the matter will be sent to the Student Honor Council
- advise the Student
Honor Council on the nature of the incident and how it was addressed,
in writing on the standard form established for that purpose
If determined by
the Student Honor Council that this is the student’s first violation,
then:
(d) the student
may not receive a suspension or expulsion on the basis of this violation,
and
(e) the student
shall be required to attend a non-credit ethics workshop, as administered
by the Student Honor Council in collaboration with the Center for
Ethics and Community, in addition to any other sanctions determined
by the faculty member.
(f) the student
will automatically be put on academic probation.
If determined by
the Student Honor Council that the student has had previous violations
or if the student fails to attend a non-credit ethics workshop or if specifically
requested by the faculty member, then:
(g) the student’s
case will be transferred to the Student Honor Council for a formal review.
3. With respect
to classroom conduct issues of fairness and civility: all members
of the CU-Denver academic community are urged, first, to take steps to
deal directly with the parties involved in order to resolve the issue.
If that fails, any member of the academic community should report the
alleged violation to the Student Honor Council.
VII. PROCEDURES:
FORMAL RESOLUTION BY AN HONOR COUNCIL REVIEW
1. Cases not resolved
in accordance with Part VI of this Code will be referred for an Honor
Council Review. An Honor Council Review is conducted by an Honor Board.
The Board is convened by the Student Honor Council. It will normally consist
of six persons, five of whom will be voting members. Determinations of
the Honor Board will be by a majority vote (three votes or more). Honor
Boards are selected as follows:
(a) Three
students selected by the Student Honor Council from among its members.
In the event the student accused of an Honor Code violation is a graduate
student, then at least one of the student members shall be a graduate
student.
(b) Two faculty
members selected in accordance with procedures established by the
Vice Chancellor for Academic and Student Affairs. In the event the
student accused of an Honor Code violation is a graduate student,
then at least one of the persons selected shall be a regular member
of the Graduate Faculty.
(c) The Honor
Board shall have one non-voting member, who shall serve as the Presiding
Officer. The Presiding Officer will be selected by the Honor Council
Administrator.
2. If the Honor
Council Administrator determines that the Student Honor Council or an
Honor Board cannot be convened within a reasonable period of time after
an accusation is made, the Vice Chancellor or a designee will convene
an ad hoc Honor Board by selecting and appointing two students and one
faculty/staff member. Whenever possible, student members of ad hoc honor
boards shall be members of the Student Honor Council. A non-voting Presiding
Officer will also be appointed by the Honor Council Administrator.
3. The referring
faculty member or the Campus Advocate or a designee shall serve as the
Complainant at an Honor Council Review. The "presenting" role
of the Campus Advocate may be designated to any member of the academic
community. While not required, referring faculty are urged to attend an
Honor Council Review. The principle responsibilities of the Complainant
are to present the evidence and analysis upon which the charge is based.
4. The purpose
of an Honor Council Review is to explore and investigate the incident
giving rise to the appearance of academic dishonesty or classroom misconduct,
and to reach an informed conclusion as to whether or not a violation of
the Honor Code occurred. In keeping with the ultimate premise and justification
of academic life, the duty of all persons at an Honor Council Review is
to assist in a thorough and honest exposition of all related facts.
The basic tenets
of scholarship¾ full and willing disclosure, accuracy of statement,
intellectual integrity and civility in hypothesis, in argument and in
conclusion¾ must always take precedence over the temptation to gain
a particular resolution of the case. An Honor Council Review is not in
the character of a criminal or civil legal proceeding. It is not modeled
on these adversarial systems; nor does it serve the same social functions.
It is not a court or a tribunal. Rather, it is an academic process unique
to the community of scholars that comprise a university.
5. The role of
the Presiding Officer is to exercise impartial control over the Honor
Council Review in order to achieve an equitable, orderly, timely and efficient
process. The Presiding Officer is authorized to make all decisions and
rulings necessary and proper to achieve that end, including such decisions
and rulings as pertain to scheduling and to the admissibility of evidence.
If in the judgment of the Presiding Officer there is reasonable cause
to question the impartiality of a board member, the Presiding Officer
will so inform the Student Honor Council, which will reconstitute the
board.
6. The Presiding
Officer or designee will select the date, time and place for the Honor
Review, and notify the Complainant, the referring faculty member, and
the student (Respondent) by personal delivery, certified mail, or by encrypted
electronic mail (with receipt confirmed), a minimum of ten (10) days prior
to the review.
7. The sequence
of an Honor Council Review is necessarily controlled by the nature of
the incident to be investigated and the character of the information to
be examined. It thus lies within the judgment of the Presiding Officer
to fashion the most reasonable approach. The following steps, however,
have been found to be efficient, and are generally recommended:
(a) The Complainant/referring
faculty member, and then the Respondent’s advocate or the Respondent,
will briefly summarize the matter before the Honor Board, including
any relevant information or arguments.
(b) The Complainant
will present witnesses having knowledge of the incident and offer
documents or other materials bearing on the case. The Presiding Officer
will normally allow the witnesses to make narrative statements, to
be followed by questions by Honor Board members. The Respondent or
the Respondent’s advocate may then ask relevant questions, as needed.
(c) The Respondent
will present witnesses having knowledge of the incident, and offer
documents or other materials bearing on the case. The witnesses will
normally be allowed to make narrative statements, to be followed by
questions by Honor Board members. The Complainant/referring faculty
member may then ask relevant questions, as needed.
(d) Members
of the Honor Board may request additional material or the appearance
of other persons, as needed.
(e) The Complainant/referring
faculty member, and then the Respondent’s advocate or the Respondent,
may make brief closing statements.
(f) The Honor
Board will meet privately to discuss the case, and reach a finding
by a majority vote.
(g) The Honor
Board will not conclude that a student has attempted or engaged in
an act of academic dishonesty or classroom misconduct unless, after
considering all the information before it, a majority of members believe
that such a conclusion is supported by clear and convincing evidence.
If this is not the case, the Honor Board will dismiss the charge of
academic dishonesty or classroom misconduct in favor of the Respondent
with a finding that an attempt or act of academic dishonesty or classroom
misconduct "did not occur," or that it was "not proven,"
whichever more accurately describes the result of its investigation.
The Respondent and the other parties would then be notified in writing
of the decision to dismiss the charge.
(h) If the
Honor Board finds the Respondent has engaged in an act of academic
dishonesty or classroom misconduct, both the Complainant, the referring
faculty member, and the Respondent and the Respondent’s advocate will
be allowed to recommend an appropriate penalty. Pertinent documents
and other material may be offered. The Honor Board will then meet
privately to make a sanction determination, which must be by a majority
vote of its members. Sanctions include, but are not limited to (i)
academic probation, (ii) educational sanctions, (iii) suspension and
(iv) expulsion. Special consideration should be given to educational
sanctions such as, ethics seminars and workshops, interviews and writing
assignments designed to explore the consequences of Respondent’s behavior
and compensatory class work.
(i) The Presiding
Officer will provide the Complainant, the referring faculty member,
and the Respondent with a written report of the Honor Board’s determination.
8. The Presiding
Officer will attempt to ensure the following rules and points of order
are observed:
(a) The student
may be assisted by an advocate, who must be a member of the academic
community. Advocates are subject to civility standards and enforcement
procedures established by the Vice Chancellor for Academic and Student
Affairs.
(b) The student
may also be accompanied by an advisor, who may be an attorney. If
a student is to be advised by an attorney at the Honor Council Review,
written notice to that effect must be provided to the Honor Council
Administrator at least three (3) days before the review is held. Advisors
may not address the review panel, and are authorized to be in the
hearing room solely to advise their clients, provided they do so without
interfering with or disrupting the Honor Council Review.
Even if accompanied
by an advocate and/or an advisor, the student must take an active
and constructive role in the Honor Council Review. In particular,
the student must fully cooperate with the Honor Board and respond
to its inquiries without undue intrusion by an advocate or advisor.
In consideration
of the limited role of advocates and advisors, and of the compelling
interest of the University to expeditiously resolve allegations of
academic dishonesty and classroom misconduct, the work of the Honor
Board will not, as a general practice be delayed due to the unavailability
of an advocate or an advisor.
(c) Honor
Council Reviews may be tape recorded or transcribed. If a recording
or transcription is not made, the decision of the Honor Board must
include a summary of the testimony. If the finding of the Honor Board
is to dismiss all charges, the tape recording or transcription of
the Honor Council Review will be immediately destroyed.
(d) Presence
at an Honor Council Review lies within the judgment of the Presiding
Officer. An Honor Council Review is a confidential investigation.
It requires a deliberative and candid atmosphere, free from distraction.
Accordingly, it is not open to the public or other "interested"
persons. However, at the Respondent’s request, the Presiding Officer
will permit a student’s parents or spouse to observe and may permit
a limited number of additional observers. The Presiding Officer may
cause to be removed from the Honor Council Review any person, including
the Respondent or an advocate, who disrupts or impedes the investigation,
or who fails to adhere to the rulings of the Presiding Officer. The
Presiding Officer may direct that persons, other than the Respondent
or the Complainant, who are to be called upon to provide information,
be excluded from the Honor Council Review except for that purpose.
The members of the Honor Board may conduct private deliberations at
such times and places as they deem proper.
(e) It is
the responsibility of the person desiring the presence of a witness
before an Honor Board to ensure that the witness appears. Because
experience has demonstrated that the actual appearance of an individual
is of greater value than a written statement, the latter is discouraged
and should not be used unless the individual cannot reasonably be
expected to appear. Any written statement must be dated, signed by
the person making it, and witnessed by a University employee. The
work of an Honor Board will not, as a general practice, be delayed
due to the unavailability of a witness.
(f) An Honor
Council Review is not a trial. Formal rules of evidence commonly associated
with a civil or criminal trial may be counterproductive in an academic
investigatory proceeding, and shall not be applied. The Presiding
Officer will accept for consideration all matters which reasonable
persons would accept as having probative value in the conduct of their
affairs. Unduly repetitious, irrelevant, or personally abusive material
should be excluded.
VIII. APPEALS
If an Honor Board
determines to suspend or expel a student, the student may submit a written
appeal to the Vice Chancellor for Academic and Student Affairs. The appeal
must be received by the Vice Chancellor within ten (10) business days
after the student has been notified of the Honor Council Review Board’s
sanction determination, sent by certified mail to the latest address provided
by the student to the institution. The Vice Chancellor or a designee shall
make a determination within ten (10) business days. Deference shall be
given by the Vice Chancellor to determinations made by the Honor Board.
Deviations from prescribed procedures will not necessarily invalidate
a decision or proceeding, unless significant prejudice to the Respondent
may result. Sanctions may not be reduced unless determined to be "grossly
disproportionate" to the offense. The determination of the Vice Chancellor
is final.
IX. RECORDS
All records and files
of violations of the Honor Code will be kept with the Office of the Vice
Chancellor for Academic and Student Affairs. If a student on academic
probation receives no other disciplinary action over the next two (2)
full semesters or until the date of graduation, whichever occurs first,
the probation and other sanctions will be removed from the student’s records.
An suspension or expulsion is kept on file permanently.
X. TRI-INSTITUTIONAL
VIOLATIONS
Students from other
institutions on the Auraria campus who violate the CU-Denver Honor Code
outlined in this document will be referred to the appropriate office at
their home institution. Conversely, CU-Denver students are held to the
principles of the CU-Denver Honor Code while enrolled in classes at other
institutions. In such cases, contact the Honor Council Administrator.
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Honor Code Initiative
c/o Chancellor’s
Scholars and Leaders
Campus Box 199
P.O. Box 173364
Denver, CO 80217-3364
(303) 556-6519
|
